Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
Sarah Van Beurden
Restitution or
Cooperation?
Competing Visions of
Post-Colonial Cultural
Development in Africa
Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21)
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
Editorial Board
Rainer Baumann
Katja Freistein
Frank Gadinger
Volker Heins
Editorial Office
Martin Wolf
Tina Berntsen
Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for
Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21)
Managing Board
Markus Böckenförde
Tobias Debiel
Claus Leggewie
Dirk Messner
Licence: Creative Commons
Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0
Attribution
Please cite the work as follows: Sarah Van
Beurden 2015. Restitution or Cooperation?
Competing Visions of Post-Colonial Cultural
Development in Africa (Global Cooperation
Research Papers 12). Duisburg: Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation
Research (KHK / GCR21).
doi: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-12. Licence:
Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0.
No Derivative Works
You may not alter, transform, or build upon
this work.
Notice
For any reuse or distribution, you must make
clear to others the license terms of this work.
The best way to do this is with a link to this
web page: www.gcr21.org/publications.
Schifferstr. 196
47059 Duisburg
Germany
Tel: +49 (0)203 29861-100
Fax: +49 (0)203 29861-199
E-Mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.gcr21.org
A Central Research Institute of the
University of Duisburg-Essen
Global Cooperation Research Papers are
available online.
To learn more about the Käte Hamburger
Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation
Research, please visit www.gcr21.org.
DuEPublico
All issues are permanently archived at the
University of Duisburg-Essen’s open-access
repository: http://duepublico.uni-duisburgessen.de.
Printed by UDZ, Duisburg
© Duisburg 2015
Copyright is held by the contributing authors.
ISSN: 2198-1949 (Print)
ISSN: 2198-0411 (Online)
DOI: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-12
Contents
Sarah Van Beurden
Restitution or Cooperation?
Competing Visions of Post-Colonial Cultural Development in Africa
Introduction
5
Setting the agenda: independence and ownership disputes
7
Development cooperation? The founding of the Institute of
National Museums in Zaire
10
Nationalizing culture versus cultural cooperation
13
Development cooperation and the international debate about
cultural restitution
16
Gift or restitution? The value of definitions
18
Conclusion
21
References
23
Abstract
This paper provides a critical and historical perspective on the use of the language of
‘development cooperation’ in characterizations of post-colonial relations between the
West and Africa. Using the example of debates over cultural and economic restitution
between Congo and its former colonizer Belgium, this paper narrates the historical
process by which the post-colonial relations between the two countries became
defined as ‘development cooperation’, and the implications of that process. The paper
shows that since its political independence in 1960 until the late 1980s, the language in
which Congo/Zaire described its ‘cooperation’ with its former Belgian colonizer was one
that emphasised restitution, while Belgium insisted on a language of ‘development
cooperation’ (ontwikkelingssamenwerking). The paper argues that the prevalence of
the use of the development cooperation language today not only obscures the
historical process behind its ascent; it also masks inequalities that are deeply
characteristic of the post-colonial relations between the two countries.
Keywords
Development, cooperation, restitution, Africa, museums
Author
Sarah Van Beurden (Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania 2009) is an associate professor of
African Studies at the Ohio State University. She was previously a visiting fellow at the
Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research at the University of
Duisburg-Essen and is currently a visiting scholar at the Max Planck Institute for the
History of Science in Berlin. She is the author of Authentically African: Arts and the
Transnational Politics of Congolese Culture (Ohio University Press, 2015) and several
articles and chapters on the history of colonial and postcolonial Congo.
Restitution or Cooperation? Competing Visions
of Post-Colonial Cultural Development in
Africa*
Sarah Van Beurden
Introduction
Between 1977 and 1982, the Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA, also known
as Tervuren) sent a total of 1,042 museum objects of Congolese origin to the
Institute for National Museums in Zaire (IMNZ).1 Belgium cast this return as a gift to
its former colony that took place in the context of a extended program of cultural
cooperation between the two countries and was driven by Belgium’s politics of
‘development cooperation’ (ontwikkelingssamenwerking). Over the years, this
description of the transfer has remained the dominant register within which these
events are discussed.
As I will argue in this paper, this version of the events, and the cooperation
language in which it is couched, obscure a different register of terms that were
used to describe the demands placed upon the post-colonial cooperation by Congo
(renamed Zaire in 1971). From its political independence in 1960 until the late
1980s, the language in which the former colony described this ‘cooperation’ was
one of restitution. The prevalence of the use of the cooperation language today
obscures not only the historical process behind its ascent; it also masks inequalities
that are deeply characteristic of the post-colonial relations between the two
countries. Using the example of the debates over cultural restitution, this paper
*
1
This paper was presented as part of the Brown Bag Series at the Centre for Global
Cooperation Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen. I thank the audience for their
insightful comments and feedback, and Volker Heins and Steven Pierce for their thoughtful
suggestions. Research and writing for this paper were supported by the History Department
at the University of Pennsylvania, the School of Arts and Humanities at the Ohio State
University, the Institute for Historical Studies at the University of Texas in Austin and the
Centre for Global Cooperation Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen. Parts of this
paper previously appeared as sections of the article ’The Art of (Re)Possession: Heritage and
the Cultural Politics of Congo’s Decolonisation’ in the Journal of African History 56 (1) (March
2015): 143–64. They are reprinted here with permission.
The RMCA opened its doors in 1910. It was created upon the initiative of Belgian king Leopold
II after a successful colonial exhibition. Originally known as the Museum of the Belgian Congo,
it was renamed the Royal Museum for Central Africa after Congo’s independence in 1960. It is
often referred to as ‘Tervuren’ after the Belgian suburb where it is located.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
5
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
will demonstrate the historical process by which the post-colonial relations became
defined as ‘cooperation’, and the implications of that process. 2
The ‘development’ concept has been understood in a wide variety of ways.
Broadly speaking, it encompasses an aspiration to participation in what is seen as
universal progress. James Ferguson has pointed out that like ‘civilization’ in the
nineteenth century, it is ‘the name not only for a value, but also for a dominant
problematic or interpretive grid through which the impoverished regions of the
world are known to us’ (Ferguson 1994: xiii). In the context of Africa more
specifically, it is associated with post-war modernization policies of colonial
governments, appropriated by post-colonial governments which pursued the
creation of national economies through policies and projects such as the reform of
agricultural economies, industrialization and the expansion of infrastructure
(Cooper 2002: 91). 3 Although generally associated with economics, cultural policies
played a role in development thinking that has been understudied (Ardouin 1997).
The creation of newly independent African countries as sovereign nation-states
implied the need not only for national economies but also for national cultures. In
other words, the ‘modernization’ of cultural identity, or of the relationship
between citizens and their culture, fit in with a development agenda.
Museums, which are at the heart of the cultural politics in this paper, are wellknown tools for the construction of citizenship. Following Foucault’s work on the
relationship between power and knowledge, scholars have turned to analyzing the
ways in which the reordering of things inside the museum aimed to provide a
model for life outside its walls. Tony Bennett, in his work on the origin of museums,
argues that they were instrumental in the civic self-fashioning of newly
enfranchised citizens in the Europe of the late nineteenth century. The act of
visiting the museum was in itself a ritual of modern citizenship. (Bennett 1995) The
art museum, in particular, was the public location where the ‘rituals of
remembrance’, aimed at celebrating a glorious past, were completed. (Duncan
1995)4 If we combine these insights about museums with the project of
decolonization, we arrive at what Dipesh Chakrabarty has termed ‘pedagogical’
decolonization politics, in which the ‘very performance of politics reenacted
civilizational or cultural hierarchies’ and the state perceived the urgent need to
educate its population as citizens (Chakrabarty 2010: 46, 53).
This type of decolonization politics saw the West as a model for development,
although it had failed to deliver this modernization during colonial rule. While an
(uncritical) emphasis on modernization remained part of the politics of
decolonization, opinions on how to achieve that development diverged. This paper
argues that while Congolese (and later Zairian) authorities believed a restitution of
resources (usually economic, but in this case also cultural) to the newly
2
3
4
For an account of how this history alters our understanding of the history of Congo’s
decolonization, see: Van Beurden 2015.
For more on the post-colonial ‘development’ project in Africa, see: Ferguson 1994 and 1999.
On the relation between colonial and post-colonial definitions of development, see Cooper
and Packard 1997 and Cooper 2004.
For one of the early explorations of the relationship between museums and nations, see
Chapter 10: 'Census, Map, Museum', in Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (Anderson
1991).
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
6
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
independent countries was a prerequisite for development, the former colonizer
used a different register to describe this post-colonial relationship, one in which
‘development cooperation’ was central to the former colony’s ability to develop
and modernize.
Setting the agenda: independence and ownership disputes
Like many other colonial systems, the Belgian rule of Congo was organized
around systems of extraction. Initially, Congo was the private colony of King
Leopold II of Belgium, who reigned over it from 1886 until 1908 through a system
of concessionary companies, directed at exploiting the colony’s economic
resources. International protests against abuses in this system – most famously
those occurring in rubber exploitation - led the Belgian state to take over the
colony in 1908. Gradually the nature of the colonial state in Congo extended
beyond the economic exploitation of the Leopoldian era: an agenda of economic,
social, and cultural modernization drove the expansion of a colonial administration
and infrastructure, particularly after World War II. Nonetheless, the exploitation of
the country’s economic potential – particularly its mining resources such as copper,
zinc, diamonds, gold, and later, uranium – remained a priority.
Congo’s road to independence was short, and its aftermath was marked by
violence and international intervention. Many Belgians were rudely awakened by
the anti-colonial protests that broke out in Leopoldville in 1959. They came as a
shock to a colonial regime that had prided itself on being immune to the unrest
spreading through other colonies in Africa. Political independence quickly followed,
on 30 June 1960. The subsequent Congo Crisis, marked by Belgian and international intervention in the newly independent country and by the murder of
Patrice Lumumba, the county’s first democratically elected prime minister,
attracted worldwide attention.
To understand the need for ‘cultural cooperation’ between Belgium and Congo,
we must go back to the moment of Congolese independence, and consider the
terms on which it was negotiated. These terms (or rather, the lack of them) formed
the basis for much of the interaction between the two countries in the decades
that followed. When Congo became independent on June 30, 1960, it was unclear
what that would mean for the country. A first Belgian-Congolese roundtable
(January-February 1960) discussed the political structure of the newly independent
state, while a second, held a mere month before independence, addressed the
economic separation of the two countries. This was a delicate subject for the
Belgian state, which had substantial holdings in several colonial companies. With
Congolese independence, it was considered only natural by Congolese politicians
that these holdings would be transferred to the Congolese state. This
nationalization would make the newly independent republic a large stockholder in
various Belgian companies in Congo, a plan far less appealing to Belgium. The
failure to negotiate the transfer of these holdings at the economic independence
roundtable resulted in demands for their restitution by the newly independent
Congolese government. These disputes, referred to as the contentieux, dragged
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
7
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
out for several decades5 (Sabakinu 1994; Peemans 1980; Buelens 2007: 332;
Zimmer 1988).
Kept off the table entirely during the roundtable by Belgium were the claims
made by Congo on its cultural heritage – specifically, the collections of the Museum
of the Belgian Congo near Brussels.6 In April 1960, only months before Congo’s
official independence, Notre Kongo (Our Congo), the periodical of the Association
of the BaKongo (a leading political party in Congo), questioned Belgian ownership
of the collections of the Royal Museum for Belgian Congo. If Congo was becoming
an independent nation, did it not have the natural right to possess its own national
heritage? Were the objects in the museum’s collections not a resource of the
country, just like its mineral wealth? In short, restitution of economic and cultural
resources to the national patrimony was needed in order for Congo to achieve the
same level of sovereignty as western countries had.
The general attitude of the Belgians at these roundtable conferences was a good
indicator of how they envisioned the future relationship between the two
countries. The Congolese delegates, somewhat naively, approached the roundtable
discussions about the colony’s economy with the expectation of being presented
with a list of assets and companies that would now be transferred to the
independent state. In reality, the conference amounted to little more than the
creation of an inventory of the colony’s economic assets and the professed desire
of the Belgian government to cooperate with Congo on the resolution of the
disputed assets. (Sabakinu 1994: 38) Preparatory meetings reveal the Belgian
desire to remain in a position of power, since ‘economic and financial aid should be
asked by [Congo], rather than offered by Belgium’ (Willame 1994: 42–3).
Despite the Belgian government’s attempts to keep the Congolese demands for
cultural restitution out of the independence negotiations, they became part of the
contentieux, an interesting indication of both Belgium and Congo’s awareness of
Congolese traditional art as a resource with economic and cultural value. Media
coverage of the Congolese claims on the museum’s collections circulated in both
Belgium and Congo and caused a stir at the museum in Tervuren.7 Internal
documents reveal that the government was well aware of the ‘legal base of these
demands’ and strategized in advance of the roundtables to keep the matter out of
the discussions. The Belgians realized, however, that the issue would come up
eventually and that it would be crucial that they control the negotiations in order
to avoid not only the depletion of what was now considered to be Belgian
patrimony (i.e. the Tervuren museum) but also to make sure the debate would not
evolve into a trial on the legitimacy of Belgian colonialism.
5
6
7
The Belgian state likely dragged its feet deliberately so the former colonial enterprises could
restructure and rearrange their finances by, for example, moving their main seats to Belgium,
effectively removing the capital from the soon to be Congolese enterprises (Foutry and
Neckers 1986).
Initially, these demands were for all of the collections, including those of the natural sciences.
As the debates progressed, the Congolese focused in on the art objects. These claims were
made both in the media and through political channels.
The first appeared in Notre Kongo, in late March, repeated on April 3, 1960, and December 10,
1960. Le Drapeau Rouge, the newspaper of the Belgian Communist Party, picked it up in its
March 26, 1960 edition, as did the journal Pourquoi Pas? on April 1, 1960.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
8
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
Lucien Cahen, director of the Tervuren museum, constructed a defense of his
institution’s possessions by pointing out the universal scientific value of the
collections as they existed; by arguing for the legality of the museum’s past
acquisitions; by questioning Congo’s focus on the museum’s collections instead of
private collections of Congolese art abroad; and by casting doubt on the newly
independent country’s ability to ensure the safety of valuable collections of art.8 In
creating an image of an immature state unable to protect the heritage still in place
– so unable to properly value heritage – Cahen affirmed Tervuren’s role as a
custodian of Congolese art.
Despite his defense of Tervuren, Cahen used a dual strategy and suggested, as
an alternative to restitution, a program of cultural collaboration:
a Belgian-Congolese cultural accord in the context of technical
assistance [in which] the Royal Museum for Central Africa would
assist with the creation of a large national museum in
Leopoldville…. [But] the Royal Museum for Central Africa cannot
be accountable for filling a national museum [in Congo] …
[although] … in the context of exchange and in an atmosphere of
understanding and mutual respect, the Royal Museum for Central
Africa could exchange, and even gift, objects.9
For the purposes of this paper, the language in the quote is again important.
While the Congolese were demanding restitution, Cahen reciprocated in a
language that emphasized assistance, exchange, and mutual respect…in other
words, a spirit of cooperation. The problem with this, of course, is that this
language hints at an equal relationship, while in reality Belgium was holding most
of the chips. Independence had not created the level playing field in which a
relationship of mutual cooperation would be beneficial. Instead, Belgium held fast
to the belief they were still the appropriate guardian of the collections at Tervuren.
The chaos that followed Congo’s political independence, marked by a series of
violent conflicts, delayed official negotiations about the contentieux, although a
partial resolution emerged in 1965 whereby stock of former colonial companies
was transferred to the new nation and an arrangement was reached about the
colony's debt (Vantemsche 2008: 213; Foutry and Neckers 1986: 130). Congolese
demands for cultural restitution remained unresolved, however, only to reemerge
later.
8
9
Cahen (1912–1982) started in 1947 in the museum’s Department of Geology and was named
director in 1958. Before coming to the museum world, he worked in Congo as a geologist and
served in the colony’s army during World War II.
RMCA, Dept. of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Lucien Cahen, 'Contentieux Mémorandum',
n.d. [early 1960s], folder IMNZ-MRAC Apport. Underlining in original.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
9
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
Development cooperation? The founding of the Institute of National
Museums in Zaire
Popular myth in Congo has it that the creation of the museum institute came at
the initiative of its president, Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, at the encouragement of
Senegalese president and Pan-African icon Leopold Senghor. In reality, its creation
was the product of post-colonial negotiations between Congo and Belgium about
the contentieux.10 As this next section will demonstrate, Congo’s demand for
restitution led to an agreement between Belgium and Congo about the creation of
a Museum Institute for the former colony. This initiative had several consequences.
First, it dampened the more confrontational restitution language for a period. A
crucial requirement for Belgium’s ‘cultural development cooperation’ was Congo’s
disavowal of its claims on the ethnographic and art collections of the RMCA. In
other words, the Belgian museum would engage with Congo only if the latter
acknowledged Belgium’s position as a legitimate guardian of the former colony’s
cultural heritage. Second, soon after the creation of the museum institute, it
became clear that Zaire’s interpretation of the project as a step in the direction of
cultural restitution ran counter to Belgium’s view of it as a cultural cooperation
project that fit into their Third World development and aid strategies.
Mobutu rose to power with army support in 1965. As both the military and
political leader, he centralized and consolidated power in the country. Belgium’s
initial enthusiasm for his reign was tempered once it became clear he planned on
resurrecting the debate about the contentieux. Relations between the two
countries fluctuated significantly, which the Belgians consistently blamed on
Mobutu’s ‘unreliability’. While there is truth to the claim that Mobutu could be
irascible, Belgium’s discomfort also had to do with his effort to create a national
economic and cultural space for Congo by pursuing the ownership of both
economic and cultural resources in a renewed commitment to an extended process
of decolonization, which went against the Belgian government’s desire to see its
relationship with the former colony cast as cooperation in the context of
development aid.
Mobutu’s tactics were confrontational. After unsatisfactory negotiations with
Belgium in 1966 about the ownership of the Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, the
most valuable economic resources in the country, Mobutu decided to nationalize
the company. Founded during the era of Leopold II, it was the country’s largest
mining company, mining copper, cobalt, tin, zinc, and – most important – uranium.11
Since the Union Minière was largely owned by a Belgian holding company, this
takeover brought relations between the two countries to a screeching halt.
While pursuing economic restitution, the Zairian president also brought up the
issue of cultural restitution again. The attention of the presidential office had been
10
11
Born Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, he later renamed himself Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa
Za Banga. He first appeared on the political stage as a journalist and as Lumumba’s personal
aide. Appointed chief of staff, he led a successful coup during the Congo Crisis (and was
involved in Lumumba’s murder) but returned power to a civilian government. He led another
coup in 1965, remaining in power until 1997.
The Union Minière supplied the Manhattan Project with uranium during World War II.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
10
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
drawn by the exhibition Art of the Congo, co-organized by the RMCA and the Walker
Art Center in Minneapolis. Comprising pieces from Tervuren’s collections, the
exhibit toured prestigious American museums from 1967 to '69. It was seen as an
illustration of Congo’s lack of control over its heritage and its inability to represent
itself.12 Restitution now also became a symbol for cultural sovereignty.
Belgium, and particularly RMCA’s director Cahen, responded by firmly re-locating
the Congolese demands in the context of cooperation and development aid. Cahen
wanted the term ‘restitution’ avoided at all cost because its use would imply an
acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Congo’s interpretation of colonialism as
exploitation. If this condition could be met, he suggested he would be able to
convince the Belgian government to donate to Congo the two hundred pieces that
were part of the Art of the Congo exhibition.13
There were other requirements for the return of the objects. Congo had to have a
museum in which to house them, and the Congolese government needed to
develop and implement legislation against the exportation of traditional art from
Congo. By making these demands, Cahen pointed out the deficiencies of Congo’s
cultural infrastructure while ascribing them to the post-colonial government
instead of to the colonial past. This again undermined the idea of Congo as a
legitimate, or ‘adult’, state, implying instead that it was in need of guidance and
development. These demands also created the conditions for the Tervuren
museum to step in and direct ‘cooperation’ with Congo.
Cahen returned to his earlier suggestion about cultural cooperation between the
two countries in the context of a museum institute in Congo. Although framed as
development aid, this kind of cooperation would benefit both parties. It would
allow the Tervuren museum to play a role in the shaping of the cultural contours of
the post-colonial nation of Congo. Furthermore, it would allow Tervuren’s staff to
do field research again. Since the advent of Congolese independence, the
museum’s scientific staff had not had ready access to the country, which in the long
run could negatively affect Tervuren’s reputation as a centre for the study of
Congo.
In his communications with Mobutu, Cahen was careful to frame the museum
project in terms of its benefits for the Republic of Congo by emphasizing that the
museum would be unique in Africa and comparable to what Leopold II had created
in Tervuren.14 But in his communications with the Belgian government, Cahen held
back. He emphasized the need for care in choosing the terms to describe the
possible transfer of objects as a ‘long-term (or permanent) deposit, thus without an
official transfer of the property title’.15
12
13
14
15
The staff at Tervuren had been apprehensive about the idea of this international exhibition,
worrying that it would again draw attention to the debate about the contentieux (Interview
Van Geluwe 2010).
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter from Cahen to Powis, 12 December
1969, folder J. Powis de TenBossche, box 15-2-77.
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter from Lucian Cahen to President
Mobutu, 10 October 1970, folder J. Powis de Ten Bossche, box 15-2-77.
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter from Cahen to Minister of National
Education, 21 May 1970, folder J. Powis de TenBossche, box 15-2-77.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
11
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
The Zaire of the early 1970’s had revenues from the copper boom, which gave it
the financial ability to spend on nation-building projects. A museum, unequalled on
the continent of Africa and showcasing the famous (and valuable) ‘traditional’ art
of the region, was exactly the kind of project the Mobutu regime was interested in.
The foundation for the museum agreement was laid in a 1968 agreement that
structured Belgian-Congolese relations. The agreement of August 1968 integrated
all existing and future ‘technical and scientific’ forms of collaboration and
cooperation between the Belgian and Congolese state into a framework of
development aid. Initially this covered a range of educational initiatives, but over
the years it came to include financial support for the restructuring of the economic
and agricultural sectors (Michel 2011: 167–8).
The agreement for the creation of the Institute of National Museums was signed
on April 30, 1971.16 Officially, the Belgian contribution was limited to a five-year
period of ‘technical help’ supplied by the experts of Tervuren, the planning of
mutual field missions (during which the new museum institute would benefit from
Tervuren’s logistical aid), and internships for the institute's staff at Tervuren.17 In
practice, however, the collaboration was very close, especially because Lucien
Cahen, director of the Belgian museum, was also named general director of the
museum institute in Kinshasa.18
The money provided by the Belgian state came via the Belgian Cooperation and
Development Agency (Agence de la Cooperation et Développement). They agreed to
pay the wages of three Belgian ‘technical advisers’ who were stationed at the
museums in Kinshasa and Lubumbashi. They, along with Cahen and a (Belgian)
adjunct director hired by the Zairian government, were expected to prepare a
group of young Zairian employees to take over their duties, create a research
agenda, gather a collection (via collecting missions as well as buying from art
dealers), and create an exhibition agenda.
The parties involved in the creation of the IMNZ had different motivations, and
ultimately interpreted the agreement to create the IMNZ differently. The RMCA
gained opportunities for field research. In addition, Cahen succeeded in
(temporarily) avoiding the issue of real restitution. And whereas the negotiations
began with the idea that a ‘gift’ of objects would be forthcoming, this clause did
not make it to the final agreement, leaving the option of a gift up to the goodwill
of Belgium – a valuable tool for Belgium in later negotiations. The agreement made
Belgium look like a benevolent former colonial power, graciously willing to
cooperate in the development of a struggling third world nation. The Mobutu
regime, on the other hand, obtained from the Belgians the know-how and
educational resources for the creation of a national museum, a project that, it was
16
17
18
Within months, the Institut des Musées Nationaux du Congo—IMNC was renamed the Institut
des Musées Nationaux du Zaïre—IMNZ. In addition to creating the Institute in Kinshasa (which
has storerooms and offices but no exhibition space), it incorporated a series of smaller
regional museums and the museum in the country’s second largest city, Lubumbashi.
IMNZ, Rapport 1970-1971 (Kinshasa, 1972). The preliminary agreement, however had been in
place since 1969.
Cahen would spend about three months per year at the IMNC, with an adjunct director
residing permanently in Kinshasa.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
12
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
hoped, would become a valuable tool for the promotion of nationhood. The
presidential office in Zaire saw the agreement and the collaboration as a form of
restitution. In their eyes, Belgium was repaying a debt it owed its former colony by
helping it establish the infrastructure that would allow it to possess, display and
study the country’s heritage.
Nationalizing culture versus cultural cooperation
Quite soon, however, it became apparent to the Zairian government that their
view of the IMNZ and its activities as a form of restitution was not reflected in its
operations.
Accusations of neocolonialism were launched at the Belgian staff and at the
museum of Tervuren. Although in the minority, the Belgian staff (along with
visiting staff from Tervuren) had a monopoly on the collecting and research
missions, and it appeared that many of the IMNZ’s goals were secondary to
Tervuren’s research agenda.
We need to see the emergence of this critique in the broader context of Mobutist
cultural politics and particularly the new ideology of authenticité. The cultural and
political agenda of this new phase in cultural politics explicitly couched the issue of
restitution in a broader struggle for cultural identity and revived the sharper
language and more confrontational attitude that had characterized the immediate
post-independence demands.
In 1971, the Mobutu regime made the politics of authenticité the state’s official
ideology. Reorienting the country’s cultural identity to ‘authentic’ indigenous
African values, it intended to end the cultural alienation caused by the colonial
experience. The goal of this new ideology was a veritable ‘cultural revolution’, in
which a new national, authentic Zairian nation would be born out of the values and
traditions of precolonial Zairian cultures. The most well-known practices associated
with authenticité were the new rules aimed at promoting traditional cultures. For
example, western dress was discouraged in favour of the abacost (a name derived
from the French à bas le costume, ‘down with the suit’) for men and the pagne
(wrapper) for women, and Christian names were abandoned in favour of Bantu
names. Joseph-Désiré Mobutu himself became Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu
wa Za Banga. The concept of restitution now extended to the symbolic reclaiming
of an entire heritage.19
The process of cultural decolonization that authenticité was designed to advance
was similar to political and economic processes of decolonization aimed at the
nationalization of the country’s economic resources. The nationalization of the
Union Minière had been followed by a ‘Zairization’ of foreign-owned businesses in
19
There is no good overview of the history of authenticité. Bob White has discussed the
ideology in the context of state-sponsored musical and dance performances (Bob White 2008
and 2006). Short overviews are provided by Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem (1998: 706-26 and 2009:
534-43). See also W. N. Z. Mukulumanya (1982: 65–96) and Kevin C. Dunn (2003: 108–20). The
literature generally fails to mention attempts to use Zaire’s traditional arts in this discourse,
despite Ken Adelman’s recognition in 1975 of their role (Adelman 1975).
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
13
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
1973, driven by a desire to keep their profits in Zairian hands. Although the effects
were disastrous and attempts were made to reverse some of these policies, they
showed remarkable similarities to the process of cultural decolonization attempted
with authenticité: the goal was the restitution of the country’s resources, whether
cultural or economic, to the nation, thereby reversing the effects of colonialism. 20
There are two ways in which the authenticité campaign is of particular interest for
the subject at hand: first, it revived both the demands for cultural restitution and
the broader rhetoric about restitution, and second, it led to a campaign of
‘Zairization’ of the IMNZ, which in turn clashed with the Belgian views on the
museum institute as ‘development cooperation.’
Mobutu strategically relaunched the debate about cultural restitution during an
international meeting of art critics in Kinshasa. Addressing the opening session of
the conference, Mobutu broached the subject of restitution in language directed at
a larger, international battle in which Zaire was now taking the lead:
Our artistic patrimony has been subjected to systematic pillage.
And we, who address you and attempt to reconstruct this rich
patrimony, we are often reduced to powerlessness. As a
consequence, the art objects, often unique, are located outside
Africa. [This conference should] draw the world’s attention [to
this subject] so that the rich countries, who possess the artworks
of the poor countries, can return part of them.21
More confrontational than before, Mobutu evoked an image of colonialism as
‘systematic pillage.’ With the international press present, he was not speaking
merely to the art critics but addressing a wider audience consisting of former
colonies and colonizers, thereby casting himself as an international leader of
formerly colonized nations.
Both the campaign for cultural authenticity and its extension in the politics of
Zairization underscored a process of increased centralization of political power in
the hands of the Mobutu regime. The IMNZ, with its mixed Belgian-Zairian
character, became subject to its own process of Zairization. There were some
significant differences between the Zairization of the economy and that of the
museum, however. For one, the IMNZ and its collections were already the property
of the Zairian state. It was the leadership, the creation of knowledge, and the
image of the museum as a Zairian institute, and not a Belgian-Zairian cooperative
project, that were at stake.
The process of Zairization affected the IMNZ at both the institutional and the
research level. The dominant role of the Belgians at the institute had become a
source of irritation to the presidential office, and it wanted to see some of the
young Zairian employees promoted. In addition, Belgians, and the museum of
Tervuren, still dominated the production of knowledge about Zairian art and
20
21
Zairization was followed by phases of ‘Radicalization’ and ‘Retrocession’ in which some
companies were returned to previous owners under certain conditions.
Address by Mobutu to opening session of 1973 AICA conference in Kinshasa, National
Archives, Kinshasa, Compte Rendu in Extenso n. 3- AICA Files MPR.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
14
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
cultures. The presidential office wanted the IMNZ to become the centre for such
research, and was keen for Zairian students and scientists to take the lead there,
too. The fear was that the IMNZ was being run as a branch of Tervuren instead of as
a national Zairian institute. This fear was not entirely unfounded. For many at the
Belgian museum, the IMNZ had been the gateway back to their site of field
research.22 Cahen argued that these researchers were needed to train the students
at the IMNZ.23 But even by 1974 hardly any of the planned missions were led by
Zairian assistants, leading the presidential office to complain that ‘the expatriate
researchers do not have to smother the Zairian assistants at every step. They have
to be able to let them be … they have to become the guides. This does not mean
eliminating them, but reserving the role of technical assistance for them’.24 Cahen
replied that not including the expatriates in field missions would also be
discrimination. ‘I understand well that the mixed missions can appear to have an
offensive character to some sensitive types, and that the program that has been
presented is full of these [mixed missions]’, Cahen wrote, ‘but only considerations
of efficiency and acquired experience have motivated the authors of the
program’.25 As a result of these conflicts, a new policy was created in 1974 that
stipulated that every mission include at least one Zairian staff member and
prohibited ‘others’ (wives, etc.) from participating.26
A last issue in the debate about the Zairization of the IMNZ was the public face of
the institute, particularly abroad. Around the time that the tensions over
leadership and missions surfaced, the presidential office decided to send an
exhibition to Paris. Tempers flared when the time came to select staff members to
accompany the exhibition. Cahen recommended one of the Belgians staff
members, a recommendation which was accepted only on the condition that two or
three of the Zairian assistants be included and that the Belgian, 'out of respect for
the authenticity, not make himself seen'27.
The results of the attempted Zairization at the IMNZ were uneven. While Zairian
assistants did get more opportunities to go out into the field to research and
collect, it took until 1989 for one of them to rise to the position of director. The
Belgians remained at the IMNZ until the early 1990s when they were forced out of
the country during Mobutu’s expulsion of all Belgians supplying ‘development
cooperation’ (Michel 2011: 168). The authenticité campaign, as well as the
Zairization efforts, resulted in a resurgence of a more confrontational language
and attitude by the Zairian state when it came to its relationship with Belgium. Its
22
23
24
25
26
27
This included ethnographic, archeological, biological and geological research, among other
fields of study.
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter Cahen to Kama, November 8, 1974,
Folder courier reçu de l’IMNZ, box 28-II-77.
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter Kama to Cahen, March 12, 1974, folder
Mobutu, Bisengimana, Kama, box 15–2-77.
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter Cahen to Kama, November 8, 1974,
folder Mobutu, Bisengimana, Kama, box 15–2-77.
RMCA, Dept. of History and Politics, IMNZ files, Letter from Cahen to Cornet, 14 June 1974,
folder Planification des Missions, box 28-II-1977.
RMCA, IMNZ files, Letter Kama to Cahen, November 29, 1974, folder Mobutu, Bisengimana,
Kama, box 15–2-77.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
15
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
attempts to highlight the continuing inequalities in terms of cultural
representation, despite the collaboration that was taking place in the IMNZ, met
with modest success. This emboldened the regime to fully exploit the international
forum offered by the growing presence of global cooperation organizations.
Development cooperation and the international debate about cultural
restitution
So far, I have considered mostly the bilateral relations between Zaire/Congo and
Belgium and the struggle over the nature and definition of these post-colonial
relations. These bilateral connections, however, were located in a broader,
international context. Mobutu used this international sphere to his advantage,
particularly the forum provided by the UN and its subsidiary UNESCO to contest the
way in which post-colonial power relations were being shaped. By the 1970s, the
worldwide protection of heritage ranked high on the agendas of these
organizations. This was not undivided good news for ‘developing’ countries,
however, as this history will demonstrate. In the long run, it facilitated the process
whereby the discourse and practices of western governments became hegemonic,
further enshrining their use of the development and cooperation vocabulary.
In the aftermath of World War II, heritage protection became an increasingly
important part of political agendas, both nationally and internationally. The
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
(commonly referred to as The Hague 1954) started the movement to legislate on
the protection of cultural heritage as property. The 1970 UNESCO Convention on
the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property, created in order to help nation-states protect the
cultural heritage within their borders against illegal removal, emphasized that
nations had a right to the possession of their cultural heritage. However welcome
this new regulation was to newly independent countries, it contained an important
caveat: the regulations were non-retroactive (Greenfield 1989: 259 and Vrdoljak
2008: 207). While recognizing the nation-state as the custodian of cultural heritage,
the 1970 UNESCO convention did not directly allow for a discussion about
restitution for colonial rule. Although these regulations and cooperative structure
paid lip service to a new world order that included many former colonies as
independent nation-states, it de facto maintained the inequalities of the older
colonial world order by denying those countries the ability to address what was
essentially a process of decolonization.
Despite these shortcomings, however, the international framework at least
created an audience and a forum for discussion, which Mobutu used to challenge
the limitations of the regulatory framework. The non-retroactive clause in
particular was his target. In October 1973, he addressed the UN in New York. Zaire
requested that cultural restitution be placed on the agenda for the 28th meeting
of the UN General Assembly, arguing that ‘these works represent the hand and
heart of the forefathers … it is natural and just to restitute to these
underdeveloped countries their beacons of light, their authentic images of a
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
16
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
continued future’.28 Zaire proposed a resolution that stipulated that ‘the cultural
heritage of a people conditions in the present and in the future the growth of their
artistic values and general development’ and used this language of nationalism and
development to draw attention to the non-retroactive nature of UNESCO 1970 as a
moral and political failure, underlining that this great transfer of art from poor to
rich countries had often been a consequence of colonial occupation.29 The
proposed resolution was immediately backed by nine other African countries.
During the debate over the proposed resolution, European countries attempted
to contest the language that indicated colonialism was solely responsible for
scattering poor countries’ cultural heritage while still advancing the idea that the
cultural sector in so-called Third World countries was in need of development. The
latter, they insisted, would counteract more important causes of traffic in cultural
heritage, such as ‘unscrupulous traffickers and the ignorance, complacency and
even at times the collusion of native settlers who out of greed, avarice or naiveté
contributed to the clandestine expropriation of artistic and cultural treasures that
are truly irreplaceable’.30
Despite the fact that Mobutu was able to flex his proverbial political muscle at
the UN, the resolution passed was watered down and difficult to enforce
internationally.31 This international maneuvering by Zaire had a clear impact on
Zairian-Belgian relations, however, and was a clear challenge to Belgium’s ability to
characterize post-colonial relations in the cultural arena as ‘development
cooperation’. It reinserted the issue of restitution into the debate, and compelled
the Belgians to re-engage with it.
Belgium now proceeded to put considerable pressure on the redefinition of any
potential transfer of objects as a gift in the context of the country’s development
aid. Mere weeks after Mobutu’s speech to the UN, Belgian minister of foreign
affairs Renaat Van Elslande held a press conference in Kinshasa where he stressed
the cooperative spirit of the existing agreement between the museums in Kinshasa
and Tervuren as well as Belgium’s financial development aid to the IMNZ. He also
mentioned that ‘it was envisioned that Belgium would transfer a certain number of
pieces, meant to complete the collections created [in Kinshasa]’ (Burnet 1973).
Such a statement was a clear sign to the Mobutu regime, but also a public claim to
the description of any future return of objects as a gift.
At Tervuren museum, this news was met with anxiety. By engaging with Zaire’s
renewed efforts on the topic, Van Elslande was allowing the Zairian government to
shift attention away from the existing agreement. Now, any return of objects from
Tervuren to Zaire would look like the result of pressure exerted by Zaire through
28
29
30
31
RMCA, Dept. Of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Ipoto, Mémoire explicatif, Distr. Générale,
A/9199 (Nations Unies, 5 November 1973), 2–3, folder UN resolutie (UN resolution).
RMCA, Dept. Of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Projet de Résolution, Distr. Générale, A/9199
(Nations Unies, 5 November 1973), folder UN resolutie (UN resolution).
RMCA, Dept. Of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Panama Representative to the General
Assembly, Provisional Verbatim Record of the 2206th Meeting of the 26th Assembly, 18
December 1973, folder UN resolutie (UN resolution).
The final draft was adopted by a vote of 113 to 0, with 17 abstentions. Unsurprisingly, most
European countries abstained, as did the United States.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
17
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
the UN and the media. Cahen also worried that if the agreement had to be
renegotiated, Tervuren might be forced to give up more material.32
Increasingly, the ability to define ‘the true character of the Belgian gesture’
became more important than the actual content of a transfer.33 For Belgium, and
particularly Tervuren, the ability to define the repatriation of objects as a ‘gift’ was
a central motivation for offering objects from their collections. Calling it a
restitution implied a different interpretation of the process whereby the objects
were obtained, and therefore of the nature of the Belgian colonial regime, as well
as the nature of the post-colonial relations between the two countries. Zaire’s
attempt to change the parameters of the debate about the possession of cultural
heritage by way of the international community was an attempt to reengage with a
process of decolonization, instead of complying with a view that characterized
post-colonial relations as ‘development cooperation’ and promoted an image of
Belgium as a benevolent provider of aid instead of a culprit responsible for the
underdevelopment of a cultural infrastructure in its former colony.
Gift or restitution? The value of definitions
By the mid 1970s, the demand for cultural restitution had gathered a
considerable history, one that was inextricably tied to the struggle between the
former colony and colonizer to reach equilibrium in their post-colonial relations.
Congo’s (and later Zaire’s) insistence on development via restitution versus
Belgium’s insistence on development via cooperation betrayed fundamentally
different views on these relations.
By 1976, despite the extensive back-and-forth on the subject between Belgium
and Zaire, no return of objects had taken place. As we’ve seen, the causes included
strained relations between Belgium and Zaire, and Tervuren’s hesitations (invoking
the lack of a proper museum building in Kinshasa and the failure of the government
to gain control over the illegal art trade), but underlying these was Belgium’s
reluctance to appear to concede to Zaire’s characterization of their post-colonial
relationship and of the injustices of the past. Belgium’s public positioning on the
matter, as well as its private communications with Zairian officials, made clear that
an actual return of objects would have to be separated entirely from the rhetoric
on restitution.
Between 1976 and 1982, however, four shipments of objects from the Tervuren
museum to the museum institute in Kinshasa took place, containing a total of 1042
objects. What caused this change of heart on Belgium’s part? And what can we
learn from the timing and description, as well as the content of these shipments?
The answers to these questions need to be seen within the broader context of
Zairian-Belgian relations, which had fluctuated spectacularly over the years, a trend
32
33
RMCA, Dept. of Culture and Society IMNZ files, Cahen, 'Geschiedenis', folder IMNZ-MRAC
Apport.
RMCA, Dept. of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Letter from Cahen to Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 28 October 1974, folder lijsten, correspondence, et al. Apport (2).
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
18
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
that only intensified from the late 1970s onwards (Willame 1985: 1–69,
Vantemsche 2007: 213–17).
As we saw at the beginning of this paper, the debate about the restitution of the
contentieux dominated much of the 1960s and early 1970s. The Mobutu regime
completed a number of nationalizations of the economic sector, ostensibly to
combat the continuing domination of foreign (and particularly Belgian) interests.
This started in 1966 with the nationalization of the Union Minière mining company,
but continued with the Zairization of a much wider swathe of foreign-owned
businesses in 1973 and ’74. This Zairization movement also had an impact on the
IMNZ, where a Zairization of the operations met with limited success. The
nationalization movement caused not only significant political tensions between
Belgium and Zaire; it also turned out to be a move disastrous to the Zairian
economy. In an attempt to reverse some of the damage done, negotiations about
compensation for foreign business owners and a ‘return’ of some of the assets
followed.
While Zaire and Belgium were negotiating about compensation for Belgian
business owners affected by the Zairization of the economy, the ‘cooperation’
agreement between the IMNZ and Tervuren that created the IMNZ was also set to
expire. Given the lack of resources provided by the regime to the IMNZ, a
continuation of cooperation with Tervuren was necessary for its survival (Van
Beurden 2009: 244–306). Tervuren also had a stake in renewing the agreement.
Although the Belgian museum was attempting to broaden its collections and
research beyond the scope of the former colony, it was still heavily oriented toward
Zaire. What stood between them, however, was still the matter of restitution.
In March 1976, Belgian foreign minister Renaat Van Elslande visited Kinshasa; the
occasion was the signing of an agreement between the two countries that
provided partial compensation for Belgian business owners who had suffered as a
consequence of Zairization. As a symbolic token of Belgian goodwill towards Zaire,
Van Elslande brought a ndop, a Kuba royal sculpture that had been in the
possession of the Tervuren museum. 34 The statue, a relatively prestigious piece,
had been part of the Art of the Congo exhibition that toured the United States in
the mid-1960s; the very exhibition that reignited the demands for restitution by
the Mobutu regime.
In response, Zaire made an important gesture that marked a significant departure
from its previous position. During a UNESCO colloquium in Venice, Eugénie
Nzembele Safiri, a young employee of the IMNZ, publicly sided with the Belgian
interpretation of a transfer of objects: ‘There has been […] a “gentleman’s
agreement” on the subject of a gift of pieces of ethnographic art that will be
complementary to the collections gathered by Zaire itself.’35 This statement
34
35
Only a limited number of ndop exist, but Tervuren possessed another (better) example of
these statues so the Belgian sacrifice was limited. For more on the ndop, see: Vansina 1972
and Cornet 1982: 50-125.
RMCA, Dept. of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Position zaïroise au colloque d’UNESCO à
Venise, April 1976, folder 2, folder lijsten, correspondence, et al. Apport (2), box ‘Restitutie
RDC 70-80’.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
19
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
endorsed the interpretation of the transfer as a ‘gift’ and ‘support’ for the IMNZ in
the context of mutual cooperation, and backed away from the restitution language.
A total of four shipments from the RMCA to the IMNZ followed, spread across a
time period of five years. The number of objects shipped to Zaire totalled 1042, but
a close look at these objects reveals the limitations of the gesture. Only 114 were
really Tervuren’s property. Thirty-two of the objects had been the property of the
colonial Museum of Indigenous Life (MVI) in Leopoldville, which had become the
victim of the chaotic 1960s. Jean Vanden Bossche, director of that museum, had
temporarily deposited them at Tervuren until the situation in Congo stabilized.36
Since the MVI seems to have become the property of Congo, there is a legal
argument to be made that these objects already belonged to Zaire.37 Another 869
of the objects returned had been part of the collection of the Institute for Scientific
Research in Central Africa (Institut de Recherche Scientifique en Afrique CentraleIRSAC) and were sent to Tervuren around the time of independence.38 Cahen was
aware that these shipments ‘pose[d] a diplomatic problem’ rather than solving one,
given Tervuren’s reluctance to donate any objects from their own storerooms, but
this was not enough of an incentive to do things differently.39 It was not until 1981
that Tervuren sent 54 objects from its own storerooms. 40
For the employees of the IMNZ, the shipments were a great disappointment. The
former collections of IRSAC had little value for a museum institute whose primary
purpose was to create a collection on a par with prestigious Western museums, and
the material from the former MVI was of varied quality (Interview Tshiluila 2011
and Van Geluwe 2010). Far from being the restitution of Tervuren’s collections
demanded by Congo in the aftermath of independence, the true meaning of the
transfers lay in their symbolic value. Mobutu’s regime could still use the transfers
as propaganda, affirming to the outside world Zaire’s ability to stand up to the
former colonial power and assert control over its own cultural heritage. Belgium,
on the other hand, succeeded in removing the restitution language from the
relations between the two countries.
The rhythm of the shipments matched the continued up and downs of the
bilateral relation between the countries. The years between 1976 and 1981 were
characterized by the Belgians’ growing fatigue with the Mobutu regime’s
unreliability and manipulations. This caused a growing desire among many Belgian
36
37
38
39
40
RMCA, Dept. of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, List of objects belonging to the Musée de la
Vie Indigène, signed by Albert Maesen and Jean Vanden Bossche, 11 August 1960, folder
lijsten, correspondence, et al. Apport (2), folder 2, box 'Restitutie RDC, 1970–'; and Letter
Maesen to Alma Robinson, April 18, 1978, folder ‘Contentieux+ Historique’.
The legal status of the museum at the time of its closure in 1965 is unclear. Originally, it
belonged to the colonial organization Amis de l’Art Indigène, which intended to pass it on to
the colonial state. Although I have not been able to establish this with absolute certainty, it
appears the museum passed into the hands of the Congolese state upon the departure of its
director Jean Vanden Bossche in 1961.
The IRSAC was a colonial Belgian research institute with branches in Zaire and Rwanda. Its
research activities consisted mostly of linguistic and social anthropology.
RMCA, Dept. of Culture and Society, IMNZ files, Letter from Cahen to Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 14 February 1977, folder ‘1e Expedition’, box ‘Restitutie RDC 70-80’.
For a complete annotated list of these 114 objects, see Wastiau 2000: 15–54.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
20
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
politicians to create some distance between the countries and debunk rumours
about Belgium’s ‘special interest’ in Zaire. The Belgian government wanted to
redefine its relationship with Zaire by emphasizing the developmental aid context
in which they located their actions and wanted to recast Zaire as one among many
African countries it was providing with development cooperation. Despite this
attempt at ‘diversification’, however, it was difficult to deny the prominent place
Zaire continued to occupy in Belgium’s ‘Africa politics’41 (Diaїte 1990).
Although the shipments stopped in 1981, the collaboration between the RMCA
and the IMNZ lasted until 1990, when Belgium cut off all development programs in
response to the Mobutu regime’s violent suppression of student protests at the
university in Lubumbashi. Mobutu reacted by expelling all ‘technical advisers,’
including the Belgians working at the IMNZ (Michel 2011: 167–8). Today, Tervuren
claims that no transfer of titles of the objects ever took place, which means they
can still legally claim ownership. As a consequence of unrest in Congo, objects from
the IMNZ collection emerged on the international art market during the late 1990s
and early 2000s. Among them were a number of the pieces from the transfers, so
Tervuren has some legitimate concerns about the safety of the collections in
Kinshasa. The Belgian museum attempted to recover some of the stolen pieces, but
the efforts met with limited success (Interview Seeuws 2005).
Conclusion
The debates described in this paper are not simply about the return of objects
from Tervuren to Zaire. More so, they are about the right to define the meaning of
the transfers and the nature of the collaboration between the IMNZ and the RMCA,
and between Belgium and Zaire more generally. Belgium triumphed in this debate,
but only after some resistance. The initial demands from Congo were formulated in
terms of restitution, but Tervuren and the Belgian government consistently and
relentlessly directed the discussion away from the concept and language of
restitution, towards a language of cooperation and aid.
The term restitution was inextricably bound up with a view of Belgian colonialism
as a system of exploitation. Defining a transfer as ‘gift’ or ‘support’, on the other
hand, affirmed Belgium’s self-image as a benevolent (former) colonizer. Not only
did Tervuren hold on to almost its entire collection; its involvement with the IMNZ
lent it an air of moral superiority and generosity. Ultimately, Belgium’s ability to
define the transfer, its content, and its timing, made it more an act of domination
than an exchange between equals. The use of language such as ‘development
cooperation’, then, also reinforced an appearance of neutrality in a relationship
that was plagued by historical inequalities. It would be erroneous to read this
history as a mere demonstration of Belgian post-colonial dominance, however.
(Bayart 1993: 26) Despite Belgium’s objections, the discourse on restitution was
politically powerful enough to survive for several decades, and even continued to
exist within the framework of cultural development cooperation.
41
The percentage of Belgium’s foreign aid budget directed towards Zaire was 59% in 1977 and
48% in 1981 (versus 77% in 1972), see Willame 1985: 61.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
21
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
James Ferguson, in his discussion of development initiatives in Lesotho, has
characterized the development complex as an anti-politics machine because of its
tendency to depoliticize the institutional apparatus within which it works and make
‘reinforcing and expanding the exercise of state power’ appear a-political42
(Ferguson 1994: 255). In the case of Congo/Zaire, it seems to me that it was the
language (and practice) of ‘development cooperation’, promoted by the former
colonizer and by the international community, that performed the de-politicizing
on an international level because it projected an a-historical neutrality upon the
relationship between both countries.
When I spoke to Nzembele (the woman who in 1976 brought the message to
UNESCO that Zaire would concur with Belgium’s view on the restitution matter) in
2010 about the history of the restitution demands, she scoffed at the idea that a
demand for restitution had been abandoned. ‘We are still waiting’, she announced
defiantly (Interview Nzembele Safiri 2011). At the museum institute in central
Kinshasa, you get the sense that most people feel that Belgium - and more
particularly Tervuren - still owes the museum. This certainly puts into perspective
the apparent renouncing of restitution demands by Zaire in 1976. Nonetheless,
‘cooperation’ and ‘development cooperation’ have become the dominant registers
in which the post-colonial relations between Congo and Belgium are discussed.
42
This is not to say that the cultural politics of the Mobutu regime did not perform their own
depoliticizing agenda, quite the contrary, authenticité served to obfuscate the increasingly
authoritarian orientation of the regime.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
22
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
References
Interviews
Interview with Huguette Van Geluwe, 28 December 2010, Oostend.
Interview with Eugénie Nzembele Safiri, 31 August 2011, Kinshasa.
Interview with Shaje A. Tshiluila, 14 September 2011, Kinshasa.
Interview with Nestor Seeuws by author, 5 October 2005, Ghent.
Secondary Sources
Adelman, Kenneth Lee (1975). ‘The Recourse to Authenticity and Negritude in
Zaire’, Journal of Modern African Studies 13(1): 134–9.
Anderson, Benedict (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism, New York, NY: Verso.
Ardouin, Claude Daniel (1997). ‘Culture, Museums, and Development in Africa’, in
Philip G. Altbach and Salah Hassan (eds.), The Muse of Modernity: Essays on
Culture as Development in Africa, Trenton, NJ-Asmara, Eritrea: Africa World
Press.
Bayart, Jean-Francois (1993). The State in Africa: the Politics of the Belly, London:
Longman.
Bennett, Tony (1995). The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory and Politics, New
York, NY: Routledge.
Buelens, Frans (2007). Congo 1885-1960: Een Financieel-Economische Geschiedenis,
Berchem, Belgium: EPO.
Burnet, Albert (1973). ‘Le Musée de Tervuren collabore avec celui de Kinshasa sans
être privé par lui de pièces essentielles’, Le Soir, 8 November.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2010). ‘The Legacies of Bandung: Decolonization and the
Politics of Culture’, in Christopher J. Lee (ed.), Making a World after Empire:
The Bandung Moment and its Political Afterlives, Athens: Ohio University
Press.
Cooper, Frederick, and Packard, Randall (eds.) (1997). International Development
and the Social Sciences: Essays in the History and Politics of Knowledge,
Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
— (2002). Africa Since 1940: the Past of the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
— (2004). ‘Development, Modernization, and the Social Sciences in the Era of
Decolonization: the Examples of British and French Africa’, Revue d’Histoire
des Sciences Humaines 1 (10): 9–38.
Cornet, Joseph (1982). Art Royal Kuba, Milano: Edizioni Sipiel.
de Villers, Gauthier (ed.) (1994). Belgique/Zaïre: Une histoire en quête d’avenir: Actes
des rencontres de Bruxelles, ULB, 7-8-9 October 1993, Brussels: Institut
Africain, CEDAF - Paris: L’Harmattan.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
23
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
— (1995). De Mobutu à Mobutu. Trente ans de relations Belgique-Zaïre, Brussels: De
Boeck.
Diaїte, Ibou (1990). ‘La Coopération Belgo-zaїroise: le maquillage d’une
domination’, in Ibrahima Baba Kaké (ed.), Conflit Belgo-Zaїrois, Paris-Dakar:
Présence Africaine: 135–64.
Duncan, Carol (1995). Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums, London:
Routledge.
Dunn, Kevin C. (2003). Imagining the Congo: The International Relations of Identity,
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferguson, James (1994). The Anti-Politics Machine. ‘Development’, Depoliticization,
and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho, Minneapolis, Mn.: University of Minnesota
Press.
— (1999). Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urbam Life on the
Zambian Copperbelt, Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.
Foutry, Vita, and Neckers, Jan (1986). Als een wereld zo groot waar uw vlag staat
geplant: Kongo 1885–1960, Leuven: Instructieve Omroep-BRT, Nauwelearts.
Greenfield, Jeanette (1989). The Return of Cultural Treasures, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Merryman, John Henry (1996). ‘Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property’, The
American Journal of International Law 80(4): 831–53.
Michel, Artistide (2011). ‘Un demi-siècle de cooperation technique belgocongolaise: histoire et bilan’, in Henri Mova Sakanyi and Eddie Tambwe (eds.),
50 ans de relations belgo-congolaises: Rétrospective et perspectives, Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Mukulumanya, W. N. Z. (1982). ‘Authenticité: Mythe ou identité?’, in Authenticité et
développement, Paris: Éditions Présence Africaine, 65–96.
Ndaywel è Nziem, Isidore (1998). Histoire Générale du Congo: de l'héritage ancien à
la république démocratique, Bruxelles: Duclot and De Boeck & Larsier, AfriqueEditions.
— (2009). Nouvelle histoire du Congo: Des Origines à la République Démocratique,
Bruxelles-Kinshasa: RMCA, le Cri Éditions, Afrique Éditions.
Peemans, J.-P. (1980). ‘Imperial Hangovers: Belgium--the Economics
Decolonization’, Journal of Contemporary History 15 (2): 257–86.
of
Sabakinu, Kivulu (1994). ‘La spécificité de la colonisation et de la décolonisation du
Zaïre’, in Gauthier de Villers (ed.), Belgique/Zaïre: Une histoire en quête
d’avenir: Actes des rencontres de Bruxelles, ULB, 7-8-9 October 1993, Brussels:
Institut Africain, CEDAF- Paris: L’Harmattan, 27–39.
Sakanyi, Henri Mova, and Tambwe, Eddie (eds.) (2011). 50 ans de relations belgocongolaises: Rétrospective et perspectives, Paris: L’Harmattan.
Van Beurden, Sarah (2015). Authentically African: Arts and the Transnational Politics
of Congolese Culture, Athens: Ohio University Press.
— (2015). ‘The Art of (Re)Possession: Heritage and Cultural Politics of Congo’s
Decolonization’, Journal of African History 56 (1): 143–64.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
24
Van Beurden | Restitution or Cooperation?
Vansina, Jan (1972). ‘Ndop: Royal Statues among the Kuba’, in Douglas Fraser and
Herbert M. Cole (eds.), African Art and Leadership, Madison, Wisc.: University
of Wisconsin Press: 41–53.
Vantemsche, Guy (2008). Congo: de Impact van de Kolonie op België, Tielt: Lannoo.
Vrdoljak, Ana Filipa (2008). International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural
Objects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wastiau, Boris (2000). Congo-Tervuren. Aller-Retour, Tervuren: RMCA.
White, Bob (2008). Rumba Rules: The Politics of Dance Music in Mobutu’s Zaire,
Durham, Nc: Duke University Press.
— (2006). ‘L’Incroyable Machine d’authenticité: L’animation politique et l’usage
public de la culture dans le Zaire de Mobutu’, Anthropologie et Sociétés 30 (2):
43–63.
Willame, Jean-Claude (1985). ‘La Politique Africaine de la Belgique à l’épreuve: Les
Rélations Belgo-Zaïroises (1978-1984)’, Cahiers CEDAF/ASDOC Studies 5: 1–
112.
— (1994). ‘Les “conseillers” belges d’hier et aujourd’hui: actiers ou figurants des
crisis zaïroises?’, in Gauthier de Villers (ed.), Belgique/Zaïre: Une histoire en
quête d’avenir: Actes des rencontres de Bruxelles, ULB, 7-8-9 October 1993,
Brussels: Institut Africain, CEDAF- Paris: L’Harmattan: 42–52.
Zimmer, Marcel (1988). ‘Les Finances coloniales jusqu’en 1960 et leurs
conséquences’, in Max Frank (ed.), Histoire des finances publiques en Belgique,
vol. IV-2, Brussels: Publications de l’Institut Belge de Finances Publiques.
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
25
Global Cooperation Research
Papers
ISSN 2198-1949 (Print)
ISSN 2198-0411 (Online)
Dirk Messner, Alejandro Guarín, Daniel
Haun, The Behavioural Dimensions of
International Cooperation
Global Cooperation Research Papers 1
Sarah Van Beurden, Restitution or Cooperation?
Competing Visions of Post-Colonial Cultural
Development in Africa
Global Cooperation Research Papers 12
Felix Bethke, Perceptions of Cooperation and
Conflict
Global Cooperation Research Papers 13
Dirk Peters, Rethinking the Legitimacy
of Global Governance. On the Need for
Sociological Research and Philosophical
Foundations
Global Cooperation Research Papers 2
OTHER SERIES FROM THE CENTRE
Christian Meyer, New Alterities and
Emerging Cultures of Social Interaction
Global Cooperation Research Papers 3
ISSN 2198-1965 (Print)
ISSN 2198-042X (Online)
Herbert Wulf, Is India Fit for a Role in
Global Governance? The Predicament of
Fragile Domestic Structures and
Institutions
Global Cooperation Research Papers 4
Volker M. Heins, Global Cooperation and
Economies of Recognition: The Case of
NGOs
Global Cooperation Research Papers 5
Annual Reports
Global Dialogues
ISSN 2198-1957 (Print)
ISSN 2198-0403 (Online)
All inhouse publications of the Centre are ready
for download from the Centre’s website:
www.gcr21.org
Morgan Brigg, Culture, ‘Relationality’, and
Global Cooperation
Global Cooperation Research Papers 6
Mario Schmidt, ‘It Will Always Be with Us’:
Corruption as an Ontological Fact among
Kenyan Luo
Global Cooperation Research Papers 7
Thomas G. Weiss, Humanitarianism’s
Contested Culture in War Zones
Global Cooperation Research Papers 8
Fritz Breithaupt. Why Empathy is not the
Best Basis for Humanitarianism
Global Cooperation Research Papers 9
Gianluca Grimalda, Nancy Buchan, Marilynn
Brewer, Globalization, Social Identity, and
Cooperation: An Experimental Analysis of
Their Linkages and Effects
Global Cooperation Research Papers 10
Pol Bargués-Pedreny, Conceptualising
Local Ownership as ‘Reflexive Cooperation’: The Deferral of Self-government to
Protect ‘Unequal’ Humans?
Global Cooperation Research Papers 11
The Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre
for Global Cooperation Research seeks
to contribute towards a better understanding of the
possibilities and limits of transboundary cooperation.
By building a learning community, researchers from
different disciplines and world regions develop an
innovative framework for contemporary cooperation
research that enables the exploration of new options
for global public policy. We aim to become a crucial
hub for this emerging branch of research. We aim to
understand the role of transboundary cooperation as
an essential part of public policy addressing global
challenges. (Mission Statement)
Participating Institutes
Institute for
Development
and Peace
www.gcr21.org
INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED
STUDY IN THE HUMANITIE S
UNIVERSITY ALLIANCE
METROPOLIS RUHR